Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23257892›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of cancer2013

Implementing improved post-treatment care for cancer survivors in England, with reflections from Australia, Canada and the USA.

M Jefford, J Rowland, E Grunfeld, M Richards, J Maher, A Glaser

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

70 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Facilitators and barriers to shared primary and specialist cancer care: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Guideline
  5. Who Is a Cancer Survivor? A Systematic Review of Published Definitions.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2017
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Follow-up protocols for women with cervical cancer after primary treatment.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Online support needs and preferences for survivors of testicular cancer: a qualitative descriptive study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Patient-perceived barriers and facilitators for risk-stratified follow-up care in lung cancer: a qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. The holistic model of leukaemia survivorship care: derived from a qualitative exploration of leukaemia survivorship.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

M JeffordAustralian Cancer Survivorship Centre-A Richard Pratt legacy, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Locked Bag 1, 'A'Beckett Street, Melbourne, Victoria 8006, Australia. Michael.Jefford@petermac.org
J Rowland
E Grunfeld
M Richards
J Maher
A Glaser

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Increasing cancer incidence together with improved survival rates are contributing to the growing number of cancer survivors. Survivors may encounter a range of potential effects as a result of the cancer itself or cancer treatments. Traditionally, the major focus of follow-up care has been on detection of cancer recurrence; however, the efficacy of such strategies is questionable. Traditional follow-up frequently fails to identify or adequately address many survivors' concerns. Aftercare needs to be planned to enable better outcomes for survivors, while using scarce health-care resources efficiently. This review focuses on provision of survivorship care, rather than on research. England's National Cancer Survivorship Initiative has developed principles for improved care of those living with and beyond cancer. These include risk-stratified pathways of care, the use of treatment summaries and care plans, information and education to enable choice and the confidence to self manage, rapid re-access to specialist care, remote monitoring and well-coordinated care. Many of these principles are relevant internationally, though preferred models of care will depend on local circumstances.

Indexed as

AftercareDelivery of Health CareSurvivorsAustraliaCanadaEnglandHumansNeoplasmsRiskUnited States

Identifiers

PMID23257892
PMCPMC3553535

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.